Not enough Python library development [was PEP scepticism]

[Justin Sheehy]

Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> writes:

>> It could be also interesting to have time module as powerful as mxDateTime
>> in standard library. And so on.
> 
> Well, propose one.  But what exactly is the point of adding it to the
> standard library when you can get mxDateTime if you need it?

There's a huge amount of value in having a module that is known to be
the de facto standard for a given use added to the standard library.

First off, people new to Python will know that they have it when they
look at the standard library documentation.  Python's rich standard
library is one of its big strengths.

Also, once something is part of the standard distribution, it is much
more likely to stick around and continue to have people pay attention
to it.  This is a major positive point for long-term stability.

For another point, I'll give a personal datapoint.  Part of my job
occasionally involves writing software that will run on a network of
several thousand computers, not all of which have the same
architecture or operating system.  Any code that I write or use that
is pure-python other than modules in the standard library is
relatively easy to roll out.  If I have to compile and deploy
separate module files for each architecture/OS in order to use a
fairly basic library, the degree of added work is really quite
enormous.

If a module is already considered to be "standard" by the Python
community, and is unencumbered license-wise, adding it to the standard
library helps everyone.

-Justin